Silly Hand

[dickens1298]

Yes 7-1 isn't right, have been cogniscent of it in this thread for the last few posts but didn't bring it up, it was kinda immaterial and I thought it would just complicate things unnecessarily - is just under 5-1 (44 cards not 45) as sweet says but is still more than big enough that it represents huge PE, so it doesn't really matter. Key is that me hitting a boat is irrelevant, since the A10h are already out and don't reduce his drawing cards, both myself and dickens missed that originally.

I don't agree that it's a bad thing him thinking I don't have a heart here. Remember, him chasing a flush draw is hugely advantageous to me, and he's much more likely to chase one if he thinks it's going to be good. Why wouldn't you want to give information to another player about your hand if that information was going to make them more likely to do what you want? I want him to chase, so if I can give him information that persuades him to do so, all the better. Not that I'm convinced that this bet does that anyway, it could easily be a semibluff on a draw myself, etc. I'd probably in fact make a similar sized bet had I flopped a flush here, against this particular player. Always slowplaying big hands and fastplaying small hands is very readable. But anyways, if he reads it as a shutout bet because I don't have a heart, great. I also get what sweet is saying about implicit collusion, but it doesn't really apply here as I'm in a heads up pot, and even if it wasn't heads up, PE is still the same it just has more variance. Simply, the bets I made represented nothing close to pot odds, and 1/2 pot odds (though they were actually more like 1/3 anyway) are miles away from callable. IMO using bet size to create PE against a drawing hand when you're confident in your read is always the right play, the only exception is when a grey area is created at the river that can screw you up, but that's not applicable here as I was all-in at the turn.

The funny thing to me in this whole thread, is if this particular player was reading it, I have a suspicion he'd be looking at it like it was written in a foreign language - I don't honestly think he considered pot odds, what I had, what he was drawing to, any of it, at all.

And RE: dickens, I didn't say I'd fold if he went all-in, I said I'd fold if he doubled me. But yes, point taken, I was prepared to pay $30 to ask a question, in view of the rewards for being able to eliminate certain hands, and it turned out to be a profitable play to do so. My play was for sure tailored to my specific opponent, one I'd been watching for a while, it's not the same play I'd make against any random individual.

It's quite likely I won't play this particular player again it's true, but I will find myself against players just as poor, and way better, and even worse etc. I'll probably eventually play this exact same hand again. Taking PE is always profitable in the long term, that an entrenched fact, and again, the result of this hand was a good one.

Yes, taking PE is always profitable in the long term, but you had no idea that you had the edge, since he could have easily flopped a flush - especially with a flush flop on the board. With him holding a potential flush, you were betting into a negative expectation situation, since your only hope of winning the hand was to draw to a full boat.

 

[tantalos]

Was in a $1/$2 NL Holdem game yesterday. Everyone folds to me in late position and I raise $10 with A10 offsuit. The SB calls, BB folds. Flop comes A107, all hearts

I've been into online Hold'em for over a year (not too long, I guess) but one lesson I've well learned is that in 9 out of 10 times, when I flop 2-pair (holding 2 different hole cards and not one pair), I am going to lose the hand.

I was playing at a 10-seat ring table the other day, and a guy won a heads-up good pot after hitting a straight on the river. The other guy showed us his hole cards (he had flopped a 2-pair) , whining about his bad luck. I told him that rarely had I win a pot,after flopping 2-pair, and advised him to remember this note of mine, each time he flopped 2-pair.

In the next 1.5 hour of playing, a 2-pair flop came up to almost each of us on the table . Every single time the guy who flopped 2-pair was beaten , and everyone on the table was amazed with my earlier comment regarding flopping 2-pair.

I'm not claiming to be the master of online poker, actually I think I'm below average. Furthermore, I'm not claiming that flopping a 2-pair will ALWAYS be beaten - of course not.

However, all of us here in this forum have been long enough into Online Holdem and know that the way cards are dealt are in NO WAY random - I think that they're dealt in a way to make the game more exciting (even if this includes losing from a guy holding 'silly' hands).

Noone has made any comment on one previous message in this thread : "Heads up tourney I get dealt K K first hand. We both start with 1500 in chips. Player against me raises from 30 chips to 120! I re-raise to 300 in chips! He goes all in! I think for a minute could he possibly have pocket Aces??? No way!! I call he turns over 2 4!!! YES!!! He is so done!!! flop comes 2 4 4!!!!". This is one more proof (among thousands we all have, I am sure) that "Random" often loses its meaning at Online Holdem. This specific story stinks - I mean, what are the odds of someone RAISING 2-4 and flopping a full house?

Again, Im not claiming to know everything, neither am I complaining. I enjoy playing Online Holdem, I've made some money and I will go on playing - but when I read this post regarding the 2-pair flop, this whole concept I described you above came into my mind. I've had these thoughts regarding online poker
for quite a while now, and I thought about sharing them with you .

Let me know what you think

 

[Daffy]

I think it's human nature to remember our "bad beats" vividly...while our "wins" (unless unusually large) are forgotten.

The orginal story here is titled correctly..."a silly hand".

SB had no business calling $190 with the 4h...but he did...and he won.

He won the battle...but I assure you he is losing the war because he is a very bad player.

You don't have to play very long to run into bad players who make runner-runner once...then bust out...it's like hitting a long shot at the track and chasing long shots forever...you are bound to lose.

the dUck

 

[Skydog]

Yes 7-1 isn't right, have been cogniscent of it in this thread for the last few posts but didn't bring it up, it was kinda immaterial and I thought it would just complicate things unnecessarily - is just under 5-1 (44 cards not 45) as sweet says but is still more than big enough that it represents huge PE, so it doesn't really matter. Key is that me hitting a boat is irrelevant, since the A10h are already out and don't reduce his drawing cards, both myself and dickens missed that originally.

I don't agree that it's a bad thing him thinking I don't have a heart here. Remember, him chasing a flush draw is hugely advantageous to me, and he's much more likely to chase one if he thinks it's going to be good. Why wouldn't you want to give information to another player about your hand if that information was going to make them more likely to do what you want? I want him to chase, so if I can give him information that persuades him to do so, all the better. Not that I'm convinced that this bet does that anyway, it could easily be a semibluff on a draw myself, etc. I'd probably in fact make a similar sized bet had I flopped a flush here, against this particular player. Always slowplaying big hands and fastplaying small hands is very readable. But anyways, if he reads it as a shutout bet because I don't have a heart, great. I also get what sweet is saying about implicit collusion, but it doesn't really apply here as I'm in a heads up pot, and even if it wasn't heads up, PE is still the same it just has more variance. Simply, the bets I made represented nothing close to pot odds, and 1/2 pot odds (though they were actually more like 1/3 anyway) are miles away from callable. IMO using bet size to create PE against a drawing hand when you're confident in your read is always the right play, the only exception is when a grey area is created at the river that can screw you up, but that's not applicable here as I was all-in at the turn.

The funny thing to me in this whole thread, is if this particular player was reading it, I have a suspicion he'd be looking at it like it was written in a foreign language - I don't honestly think he considered pot odds, what I had, what he was drawing to, any of it, at all.

And RE: dickens, I didn't say I'd fold if he went all-in, I said I'd fold if he doubled me. But yes, point taken, I was prepared to pay $30 to ask a question, in view of the rewards for being able to eliminate certain hands, and it turned out to be a profitable play to do so. My play was for sure tailored to my specific opponent, one I'd been watching for a while, it's not the same play I'd make against any random individual.

It's quite likely I won't play this particular player again it's true, but I will find myself against players just as poor, and way better, and even worse etc. I'll probably eventually play this exact same hand again. Taking PE is always profitable in the long term, that an entrenched fact, and again, the result of this hand was a good one.

Why are you continuing to argue your point here? Reading the nonsense replies to your original post you must know you are wasting your time. Most of the replies you've gotten are laughable in their misunderstandings of the game. You would do better posting in a forum where people know poker (like twoplustwo or cardrunners, etc.)?

LOL - just noticed the date of these posts! I came across this post with a search engine...

 

[guesswest]

LOL - just noticed the date of these posts! I came across this post with a search engine...

The funny thing is I haven't posted on CM in years and I stop by randomly to see that a thread I started is active